Trigger
warning:
this
article
contains mentions of sexual assault
O
h yeah, I was at a frat last
night” — a decently typical
way to begin a story — “and
some dude shoved his hand down
my pants.”
“Some dude — what?” I whipped
around to stare at my friend, eyes
wide. I was horrified, but not all
that surprised.
“Yeah. Everyone was pretty
drunk at the time, I was sober and
just — the vibe was off. This dude
started dancing with me and then
he started to dance a little more…
on me?” She posed it as a question.
“So I, like, threw my elbow back
but he just pulled me closer to him
and put his hand down my jeans. It
was gross.”
I didn’t know how to react. I
told her I was sorry she had to go
through that and asked if she had
reported the incident. She hadn’t,
even though she was well aware
of the Sexual Assault Prevention
and Awareness Center’s resources
(which you can find at the end of
this article).
The nonchalance with which
she told me her story makes me
question why it is that we all
seem so desensitized to sexual
assault and whether sexual assault
prevention
resources
are
as
accessible as they claim to be for
University of Michigan students.
So I sat down with LSA senior
Sophia Fortunato, the student
co-coordinator of the Consent,
Outreach
and
Relationship
Education
(CORE)
team
at
SAPAC. She told me that SAPAC,
within its four branches (CORE,
Bystander
Intervention
and
Community Engagement, Survivor
Empowerment and Ally Support
and Michigan Men) works on four
separate levels. The intrapersonal
level
includes
empowerment
activities
that
encourage
self
love and continuing education.
Interpersonal
involves
healthy
relationship
workshops
and
peer-to-peer
communication.
The cultural level deals with
primary
prevention
education
and bystander training. And last
is institutional, involving campus-
wide policy and the University’s
response to sexual assault. This
is the one level Fortunato feels
is lacking and her sentiment is
echoed in the University’s history
addressing sexual assault claims.
“You can’t really go about trying
to end any ‘-ism’ or any oppression
without taking (all four levels) into
consideration,” she said, adding
that SAPAC’s reach across these
levels is what gives her hope.
Then, with my friend’s story
in
mind,
I
asked
Fortunato
when students should reach out
to SAPAC. She responded that
“there is a lack of awareness
regarding what SAPAC does and
what resources are available,” but
students are encouraged to reach
out for “any personal concerns
relating to sexual assault” including
asking
for
advice,
reporting
sexual assault, learning about the
volunteer programs or expressing
concern for another person.
Lack
of
awareness
and
consequences are just two pieces
of the puzzle that is normalizing
sexual assault culture on college
campuses. The power dynamics
allowed by “sexual geography,” a
term coined by authors Jennifer S.
Hirsch and Shamus Khan in their
book Sexual Citizens referring to
“places and spaces where people
meet folks that they might be
interested
in
romantically
or
sexually,” is another piece. One
such example of normalization
through sexual geography occurs
at fraternity houses. Fortunato
elaborates that at a fraternity
“you are always stepping into —
physically — a space controlled
by (the) group of men (that live
there). (And) that power dynamic
and geography inherently creates
implied norms about who is more
entitled in that space and whose
boundaries and consent aren’t as
privileged.”
But when it comes to changing
rape and party culture on campus,
the answer doesn’t seem as
obvious. During our interview,
Fortunato
emphasized
the
timeline SAPAC works within,
stating that “by the time students
come to college, they have been
socializing for 18-20 years of their
life” already, meaning how one
interacts is “pretty locked in by
the time they arrive on campus.”
Now I, too, am a victim of the “Tea
Consent” video of our collective
youth, which taught the rather
complex concept of consent by a
two-minute animation. Even as
someone who has since pursued
further education on the subject,
I wonder how effective primary
prevention education can really be
at the college level.
Perhaps
it’s
less
about
informational
handouts
and
the four Cs of consent that one
may or may not remember once
blackout drunk, and more about
denormalizing the “college life”
which
perpetuates
the
non-
consensual behavior that plagues
each and every campus. Or maybe
prevention education must start
at a far younger age, taking its
place between Algebra 1 and Sex
Ed. Or perhaps we must consider
large scale policy change, forcing
institutions to take responsibility
for the profusion of sexual assault
occurring under their watch, the
disregard of which is now being
brought to the forefront by Dr.
Anderson’s victims and many other
brave students who have shared
their stories. Either way, it is clear
that organizations such as SAPAC
must be paired with campus
reform in order to create real,
lasting change in an ever-changing
community such as the University
of Michigan.
So as we invite the newest class
of Wolverines to the University
this fall, let’s focus on welcoming
them into a community that
prioritizes the sexual agency of
every individual.
SAPAC Resources: (734) 764-
7771
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
Wednesday, March 16, 2022 — 9
PAIGE HODDER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
JASMIN LEE
Editor in Chief
JULIAN BARNARD
AND SHUBHUM GIROTI
Editorial Page Editors
ficial position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Julian Barnard
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Ben Davis
Andrew Gerace
Shubhum Giroti
Min Soo Kim
Jessie Mitchell
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Nikhil Sharma
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Devon Hesano
Rushabh Shah
Alex Yee
Anna Trupiano
Jack Tumpowsky
W
ar precludes perfect
solutions. It necessitates
sacrificing
the
dream of mutual prosperity in the
pursuit of bare survival. U.S. policy
surrounding the attack on Ukraine
needs to reflect this reality. Direct
military intervention is seemingly
off the table, as it should be. Even
though we will not be sending
troops to defend Kyiv, Ukrainian
allies must still take swift and
decisive action to decimate the
Russian regime economically until
a resolution is met, while also aiding
those fleeing the conflict.
Recently
the
Biden
administration,
under
heavy
pressure from Congress, moved
to ban Russian oil imports. This
was
a
well-needed
sacrificial
step for Americans, and one that
cordons off a key part of Russia’s
economy from the rest of the
world. Unfortunately, European
allies have failed to undertake
the same sacrifice. NATO — the
treaty group of Western countries
initially bound together to stand
up to Soviet influence in the 20th
century — is most successful when
it acts in unison. For Europe to lie
back and let the U.S. take action,
while avoiding taking similar steps,
makes these moves less effective
in combating Russian aggression.
Not only that, it prolongs the
conflict that will leave thousands of
additional Ukrainians and Russians
dead.
A
second
action
the
administration should take, with
congressional partnership, is to
make a direct and forceful call
on U.S. companies to suspend
operations in Russia. A significant
number of companies have already
taken such action without federal
support, but holdouts still exist
— Hilton, Hyatt and Mars being
among them. If this conflict is to end
in a timely manner, companies must
suspend operations, as opposed
to ending them outright, with the
condition that business operations
in Russia will return at the
conclusion of Russian aggression.
This sets a concrete barometer,
while clearly incentivizing Russian
de-escalation.
Likewise,
the
American
government
should
put its full weight behind efforts
to punish Russian oligarchs with
assets in the U.S. and other Western
countries.
As of March 8, over 2 million
people have fled Ukraine, half of
whom are reportedly children.
About 25% of the aforementioned
refugees have sought safety in
neighboring countries such as
Poland, but it is imperative that
other European — such as Germany
— countries pull their weight
as well. While there has been
outpouring support across Europe
for Ukraine in the past 10 days,
some worrying trends have come
to light. Reports of people of color
finding it significantly harder to
escape Ukraine mirror the biased
media coverage of the invasion
as compared to similar situations
in Africa and the Middle East.
Intentional or not, the message
coming out of Europe right now is
that refugees are welcome, just not
all of them.
Looking beyond the Atlantic, the
more places there are for Ukrainians
to seek refuge, the better, and
the U.S., too, must play its part.
However, there is an argument to
be made that a more efficient use
of U.S. resources would involve
allocating resources to countries
in Eastern Europe that are more
appropriate hosts by virtue of
their geography. This would allow
Eastern European countries — such
as Poland — to prepare for the surge
of incoming Ukrainians, who would
also benefit from a well-funded
refugee program.
While the short-term focus is
and should be on aiding Ukrainian
refugees, they are not the only
people actively seeking to flee the
current conflict. Reports suggested
that almost 50% of the Russian
population do not support Putin’s
invasion of Ukraine, with the
deteriorating economic situation
one of many reasons for such
displeasure. This offers the U.S.
and the global community an
opportunity to attract educated
Russian individuals to immigrate to
the U.S. or Europe. Not only would
this further Russia’s shrinking
population problem, it would be
the sort of brain drain, an exodus
of educated citizens, that weakens
the powerhouses of the Russian
economy, many of whom have
played vital roles in strengthening
Putin’s reign. While such an idea
of
weaponized
emigration
—
using green cards and permanent
residency statuses to lure educated
urbanites out of Russia — will pay
dividends in the long term, it will
have the added short-term benefit
of dismaying the Russian public,
and hopefully bringing an end to
the conflict sooner.
On Feb. 22, 2022, German
Chancellor Olaf Scholz declared a
halt to the certification of the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline, the second of
two Baltic Sea natural gas pipelines
from Russia to Germany. While the
Russian state-operated company
Gazprom maintains more than 50%
of Nord Stream 1, created in 2011,
Nord Stream 2 is owned entirely
by Gazprom. Prior to the February
invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the
United States and the European
Union expressed their concerns
about Nord Stream 2 and German
reliance on Russian energy. In
response, the Chancellor defended
the project out of “private-sector”
interests, deterring attention from
political impact in late 2021.
In January, as concerns of
invasion arose, the U.S. and EU
released a joint statement declaring
a move toward accessing natural
gas from “diverse sources across the
globe” to better protect European
countries from supply shocks and
reliance on Russia. As Western
Europe’s economic powerhouse,
Germany is not only in danger
of creating a disunited EU front
against Russia but also risking
long-term economic strangulation
in Ukraine. Major Soviet-era gas
pipelines from Russia to Europe
have long fed Ukraine transit fees,
fees that Baltic undersea pipelines
avoid paying.
Without
access
to
Russia’s
steady supply of gas, Germany
has legitimate fears about its
energy independence. However,
without a united front against the
Russian
government,
sanctions
may not be as effective or work as
quickly. While Germany relies on
Russia, Russia relies on Europe
— about 70% of Russia’s natural
gas exports go to Europe. In other
European countries, like France
and the Netherlands, reliance on
Russian gas is far below the roughly
40% of EU-wide dependence. In
early 2022, France promised an
expansion of its already substantial
nuclear program, moving toward
more sustainable and independent
energy. Nuclear energy, a highly
polarizing
topic
concerning
cleaner
energy
and
possible
nuclear disasters (such as those in
Chernobyl and Fukushima), has
made France less reliant on Russia.
On the other side of the energy
argument, Germany promised in
From The Daily: Punishing Russia
— the smart way
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
I
n November of 2018, former
U.S.
Rep.
Beto
O’Rourke,
D-Texas, ended his concession
speech to Republican incumbent
Senator Ted Cruz by exclaiming
“I am so fucking proud of you
guys.” Abrupt and unfiltered, this
conclusion embodied the heart
and soul of the O’Rourke Senate
campaign.
O’Rourke’s efforts to win a seat
in an elected position have not gone
unnoticed by the media, or by the
public. His usage of social media and
community involvement are what
have made him notable, and, while
not successful at the ballot box, he
has been successful in changing
how campaigns are run.
In the last five years, O’Rourke
has staged political runs as a man of
grassroots ties — knocking on doors
and speaking directly to the people
he aims to represent. His 2018
Senate run against Cruz, his 2020
Democratic primary hopes and
his current campaign against Gov.
Greg Abbott hold this same core —
the strategic message of “Powered
by People.” In fact, these hands-on
efforts did make a difference: the
O’Rourke Senate campaign was an
intensely close call, with only a 2.6%
difference between O’Rourke and
Cruz.
The other notable characteristic
of the efforts of O’Rourke and
multiple other Democrats is their
shared goal. Young, fresh-faced
politicians want a seat at the table
because they want to make change
and directly help their constituents,
but, in recent election years, the true
goal of hopeful Democrats seems to
be voting Trumpism out of office.
The primary goal of Democrats
in the 2016 election was to prevent
Donald Trump — a new brand of
conservative, a right wing populist
— from becoming president. That
hope was replicated in 2020, with
the Democratic establishment again
aiming to stop Trump from winning
re-election. The general election
was no different — Democrats
fought hard to take back the Senate
by defeating Republican officials
particularly supportive of Trump.
Congressional Democrats and
political hopefuls like O’Rourke find
themselves split by ideology — with
the progressive and moderate sides of
the party continuously challenging
one another on the party’s legislative
agenda. Disagreement leads to lack
of action, and in recent months the
Democratic Party has been often
described as ineffective in their
efforts to enact substantive policy.
Though not united ideologically, the
Democrats continue to collectively
oppose the Trump-wing of the
Republican Party.
American voters have become
more polarized in recent election
cycles. Trump’s position in the
political framework has intensified
this division, and a focus on
defeating him has made people
defensive of their party, whether
Democrat or Republican. People still
vote based on issues of importance
and who is best fit to serve their
interests,
but
with
campaigns
becoming much more candidate-
centered, politicians — specifically
Democrats — have made changes
in their campaigning efforts. It has
become less about who is the best
candidate to serve their constituents
or who may best achieve these policy
goals and more about preventing
other parties from taking control.
This mindset actively works against
the interests of those they are meant
to represent.
O’Rourke is making his third
attempt in the past five years to
represent the people of Texas.
By
effectively
and
personally
communicating his goals with
voters, O’Rourke, like many other
Democratic
candidates,
comes
across as well-acquainted with
the role of public office and the
importance of constituent service.
But having tried and failed two
times to defeat a Republican
incumbent, ulterior motives may
be detected: is this about service, or
is it about preventing Republicans
who share Trump’s ideology from
holding office?
It is commendable to continue to
run for public office after multiple
defeats. But, at some point, candidate
and party-based motives are not
enough to run on, and they can, in
many cases, do more harm than
good. Being opposed to a certain
candidate or party does not make
a campaign popular, and repeated
attempts to unseat Republicans
— without any meaningful policy
goal after they are defeated — are
counter to a “progressive” agenda.
O’Rourke’s close race in 2018 gave
him the confidence to continue
campaigning, but, over the years,
it has become less about him
being the best candidate for the
people and more about defeating
a Republican. In an era when
intensified
political
and
social
issues have become central to the
identity of people, voting a certain
type of politician out of office is
no longer reasonable: the act of
voting a certain type of politician
into office is most important.
Democratic
communications
strategy, rightfully, mobilized to
eject Donald Trump from office
and combat his wrongdoings. But
this
communications
strategy
seems to be sorely inept at
combating Republicans post Trump
Presidency.
Democrats are struggling to stay
afloat with this philosophy in mind.
With the midterm elections quickly
approaching, they have to begin to
rethink their strategy. Focusing on
the past is counterproductive, and
calling out former presidents on
the campaign trail is not the call to
action they think it is. There must
be a concrete agenda for candidates
to follow: an effective compromise
between the more progressive
and moderate wings of the party.
The American people want direct
aid from their representatives.
They want constructive policy
that makes their lives better — not
speeches dedicated to discussing
a politician who no longer holds
public office.
“Voting Trumpism out of office”
won’t work anymore; it won’t get
constructive Democrats elected.
Hopefuls such as O’Rourke must
focus less on being the opposite
of Trump and his allies and more
on being a representative for their
constituents. Elections may be
about victory, but not for one’s self
or party — for the constituents they
represent.
Campaigning against Trump won’t
work for Democrats in 2022
LINDSEY SPENCER
Opinion Columnist
THE MICHIGAN DAILY
EDITORIAL BOARD
An everyday occurrence — sexual assault?
REVA LALWANI
Opinion Columnist
The duality of Michigan weather
Design by Opinion Cartoonist Ambika Tripathi